Uintatherium

File:Rs-11415 1024x1024.jpgFossils of Uintatherium were first discovered in the Bridger Basin near Fort Bridger by Lieutenant W. N. Wann in September 1870, and were later described as a new species of Titanotherium, Titanotherium anceps, by Othniel Charles Marsh in 1871.{{cite journal |last=Wheeler |first=W. H. |date=1961 |title=Revision of the Uintatheres |url=http://images.peabody.yale.edu/publications/bulletin/Bulletin14_1961.pdf |journal=Peabody Museum of Natural History Bulletin |publisher=Yale University |volume=14}} The specimen (YPM 11030) only consisted of several skull pieces, including the right parietal horn, and fragmentary postcrania. The following year, Marsh and Joseph Leidy collected in the Eocene Beds near Fort Bridger while Edward Drinker Cope, Marsh's competitor, excavated in the Washakie Basin. In August 1872, Leidy named Uintatherium robustum based on a posterior skull and partial mandibles (ANSP 12607).{{cite journal |last=Leidy |first=Joseph |date=1872 |title=On some new species of fossil mammalia from Wyoming |journal=Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia Proc. |pages=240–242}} Another specimen discovered by Leidy's crews consisting of a canine was named Uintamastix atrox and was thought to have been a saber-toothed and carnivorous.

Eighteen days after the description of Uintatherium, Cope and Marsh both named new genera of Uinta dinoceratans, Cope naming Loxolophodon in his "garbled" telegram{{Cite journal |last=Cope |first=Edward |date=1872 |title=Telegram describing extinct Proboscidians from Wyoming |journal=Paleontological Bulletin |volume=5}} and Marsh dubbed Tinoceras.{{Cite journal |last=Anonymous |date=1 March 1885 |title=Professor Marsh's monography of the dinocerata |url=https://www.ajsonline.org/content/s3-29/171/173 |journal=American Journal of Science |language=en |volume=s3-29 |issue=171 |pages=173–204 |bibcode=1885AmJS...29..173A |doi=10.2475/ajs.s3-29.171.173 |issn=0002-9599 |s2cid=219246354}} Due to Uintatherium being named first, Cope and Marsh's genera are synonymous with Uintatherium. Cope described two genera in his telegram, Loxolophodon and Eobasileus;{{cite journal |last=Cope |first=E. D. |date=1873 |title=On the Short Footed Ungulata of the Eocene of Wyoming |journal=Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society |volume=13 |issue=90 |pages=38–74}} the latter is currently considered separate from Uintatherium. Tinoceras was a new genus made for Titanotherium anceps by Marsh. Several days later, Marsh erected the genus Dinoceras. Dinoceras and Tinoceras would receive several additional species by Marsh throughout the 1870s and 1880s, many based on fragmentary material. Several complete skulls were found by Cope and Marsh crews, leading to theories like Cope's proboscidean assessment.{{cite journal |last=Cope |first=E. D. |date=1873 |title=On Some of Prof. Marsh's Criticisms |journal=The American Naturalist |volume=7 |issue=5 |pages=290–299 |doi=10.1086/271139 |s2cid=85218504 |doi-access=free}} Because of Cope and Marsh's rivalry, the two would often publish scathing criticisms of each other's work, stating their respective genera were valid. The trio would name 25 species now considered synonymous with Marsh's original species, Titanotherium anceps, which was placed in Leidy's genus, Uintatherium. In 1876, William Henry Flower, Hunterian Professor of Comparative Anatomy, wrote a letter in Nature wherein he formally suggested incorporating all of Cope's, Leidy's, and Marsh's taxa into Uintatherium, due to it being named first (which would make it a senior synonym), and a lack of convincing evidence for their separation.{{Cite book |last=Flower |first=William Henry |author-link=William Henry Flower |url=http://archive.org/details/paper-doi-10_1038_013404e0 |title=The Uintatherium |date=1876 |publisher=Springer Nature |language=en}}

File:Uintatherium insperatus Holotype IVPP.jpg]]Many additional discoveries of Uintatherium have since occurred, making it one of the best-known and popular American fossil mammals.{{cite journal |last=Wheeler |first=W. H. |date=1960 |title=The uintatheres and the Cope–Marsh war |journal=Science |volume=131 |issue=3408 |pages=1171–1176 |bibcode=1960Sci...131.1171W |doi=10.1126/science.131.3408.1171 |pmid=17773922}} Princeton University launched expeditions to the Eocene beds of Wyoming in the 1870s and 1880s, discovering several partial since skulls and naming several species of uintatheres that are now considered synonyms of U. anceps.{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=W. B. |date=1886 |title=On some new forms of the Dinocerata |url=https://zenodo.org/record/2036878 |journal=Am. Jour. Sci. |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=303–307 |bibcode=1886AmJS...31..303S |doi=10.2475/ajs.s3-31.184.303 |s2cid=130191459}} Major reassessment came in the 1960s by Walter Wheeler, who synonymized and redescribed many of the Uintatherium fossils discovered during the 19th century A cast of a Uintatherium skeleton is on display at the Utah Field House of Natural History State Park. A skeleton of Uintatherium is also on display at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC.{{Cite web |title=Paleobiology |url=http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/evidence/eoc_02.html |publisher=Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History}} A new species was named based on almost intact skull, U. insperatus, found in the lower part of the Lushi Formation of the Lushi Basin in Henan Province, China.

Uintatherium was initially regarded by Marsh as a brontothere. However, similarities to proboscideans (relatives of elephants), noted by various authors, lead Cope to classify it as a member of that group. While he acknowledged Marsh's reasoning, he nonetheless believed that it stemmed from "unusual sources", and that: "The absence of incisor teeth no more relates these animals to the Artiodactyla than it relates the sloth to the same order [...] the presence of paired horns no more constitutes affinity to the ruminants than it does in the case of the 'horned-toad'." It has since been recognised that similarities to proboscideans are likely the product of convergent evolution. Uintatherium was reclassified by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1881 as part of the order Dinocerata. At the time, dinocerates were believed to be part of Amblypoda, a group uniting an assortment of basal ungulates from the Palaeogene,{{Cite book |last=Osborn |first=Henry Fairfield |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/86399 |title=A memoir upon Loxolophodon and Uintatherium, two genera of the sub-order Dinocerata |last2=McMaster |first2=John Bach |date=1881 |publisher=Princeton |location=Princeton, N.J}}{{Cite journal |last=Cope |first=E. D. |date=1885 |title=The Amblypoda (Continued) |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2449981 |journal=The American Naturalist |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=40–55 |issn=0003-0147}} and were sometimes referred to simply as "dinoceratous amblypods".{{Cite journal |last=Cope |first=E. D. |date=1884 |title=The Amblypoda |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/273808 |journal=The American Naturalist |volume=18 |issue=11 |pages=1110–1121 |doi=10.1086/273808 |issn=0003-0147|url-access=subscription }}

The group Amblypoda has since fallen out of use, and is generally regarded as polyphyletic, meaning that it was an unnatural group consisting of an assortment of distantly related clades.{{Cite journal |last=Janis |first=Christine |date=1992 |title=The importance of paraphyletic groups in mammalian paleobiology |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleontological-society-special-publications/article/importance-of-paraphyletic-groups-in-mammalian-paleobiology/44D549CAAB81731A982B17F21FFF1BC6 |journal=The Paleontological Society Special Publications |language=en |volume=6 |pages=148–148 |doi=10.1017/S2475262200007085 |issn=2475-2622}} Dinocerata, however, has persisted, though the precise relationships of the order have been the subject of debate. Relationships with South American native ungulates (SANUs), specifically xenungulates, have been suggested,{{Cite journal |last=Shoch |first=Robert M. |last2=Lucas |first2=Spencer G. |date=1985 |title=The phylogeny and classification of the Dinocerata (Mammalia, Eutheria) |url=https://paleoarchive.com/literature/Schoch&Lucas1985-PhylogenyClassificationDinocerata.pdf |journal=Bulletin of the Geological Institutions of the University of Uppsala, N.S |volume=11 |pages=31–58}}Spencer G. Lucas, Robert M. Schoch 19. "Dinocerata" in: Evolution of Tertiary Mammals of North America: Volume 1, Terrestrial Carnivores, Ungulates, and Ungulate like Mammals (1998){{cite web |last=Burger |first=Benjamin J. |year=2015 |title=The systematic position of the saber-toothed and horned giants of the Eocene: the Uintatheres (Order Dinocerata) |url=http://www.benjamin-burger.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/SVP-Poster-Ben-Burger-2015.pdf |location=Utah State University Uintah Basin Campus, Vernal, UT, 84078, United States Of America}} with Spencer G. Lucas and Robert M. Schoch in 1998 supporting the complete removal of both clades from Ungulata. If dinoceratans and xenungulates are indeed related, they may constitute the mirorder Uintatheriamorpha. However, it has been stated that no strong evidence for this relationship exists, and that similarities may simply be the result of convergence.{{Cite journal |last=Gelfo |first=Javier N. |last2=López |first2=Guillermo M. |last3=Bond |first3=Mariano |date=2008-03-01 |title=A New Xenungulata (Mammalia) from the Paleocene of Patagonia, Argentina |url=https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/paleosoc/jpaleontol/article-abstract/82/2/329/83717/A-New-Xenungulata-Mammalia-from-the-Paleocene-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext |journal=Journal of Paleontology |volume=82 |issue=2 |pages=329–335 |doi=10.1666/06-099.1 |issn=0022-3360|url-access=subscription }}{{Cite journal |last=Croft |first=Darin A. |last2=Gelfo |first2=Javier N. |last3=López |first3=Guillermo M. |date=2020-05-30 |title=Splendid Innovation: The Extinct South American Native Ungulates |url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-earth-072619-060126 |journal=Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences |language=en |volume=48 |issue=1 |pages=259–290 |doi=10.1146/annurev-earth-072619-060126 |issn=0084-6597|url-access=subscription }}

Dinocerata has historically been divided into two families: Prodinoceratidae, and Uintatheriidae. The latter family consists of the majority of dinocerate genera, and has itself been divided into Gobiatheriinae and Uintatheriinae;{{Cite journal |last=Lucas |first=Spencer G. |date=February 2001 |title=Gobiatherium (Mammalia: Dinocerata) from the Middle Eocene of Asia: Taxonomy and biochronological significance |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02988166 |journal=Paläontologische Zeitschrift |language=en |volume=74 |issue=4 |pages=591–600 |doi=10.1007/BF02988166 |issn=0031-0220|url-access=subscription }} occasionally, the latter has been divided even further, down to tribe level (Bathyopsini and Uintatheriini) Walter H. Wheeler suggested in 1961 that the taxa now classed as uintatheriines formed a primarily anagenetic lineage, and that Uintatherium was one of few diverging genera, possibly evolving from Bathyopsis middleswarti (which he believed to be ancestral to both Uintatherium and later dinocerates). Robert M. Shoch and Spencer G. Lucas, in 1985, performed a phylogenetic analysis of Dinocerata, and recovered Uintatherium as the sister taxon to a clade consisting of Eobasileus and Tetheopsis, slightly more derived than Bathyopsis. William D. Turnbull, however, suggested in 2002 that both Tetheopsis species could be lumped into Eobasileus, and that Uintatheriini might thus consist exclusively of Eobasileus and Uintatherium.

Image:Uintatherium DB.jpg

Uintatherium was a large animal, with U. anceps standing {{cvt|1.5|m}} at the shoulder.{{cite book |last1=Rich |first1=Patricia Vickers |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QCC9DwAAQBAJ&dq=Eobasileus+weight&pg=PA555 |title=The Fossil Book: A Record of Prehistoric Life |last2=Rich |first2=Thomas Hewitt |last3=Fenton |first3=Mildred Adams |last4=Fenton |first4=Carroll Lane |date=15 January 2020 |publisher=Dover Publications |isbn=9780486838557 |pages=555 |access-date=4 September 2022}} Several body mass estimates have been proposed for the genus. In a 1963 work, Harry J. Jerison provided various mass estimates for a multitude of Palaeogene taxa. An average of two estimates{{Cite book |last=Turnbull |first=William D. |url=http://archive.org/details/mammalianfaunaso47turn |title=The mammalian faunas of the Washakie Formation, Eocene age, of southern Wyoming |date=2002 |publisher=Chicago, Ill. : Field Museum of Natural History |others=University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign}} resulted in a mass of {{Convert|1,400|kg|lb|abbr=on}}, while the use of scale models resulted in a range of {{Convert|1,300–2,300|kg|lb|abbr=on}}.{{Cite book |last=Jerison |first=Harry J. |title=Evolution of the brain and intelligence |date=1973 |publisher=Academic press |isbn=978-0-12-385250-2 |location=New York London}} John Damuth, using head–body length and data from teeth recovered considerably a smaller body mass of {{Convert|690–867|kg|lb|abbr=on}}. Using Jerison's methods and additional data provided by Damuth, in 2002, William D. Turnbull proposed an estimate of {{Convert|1,450|kg|lb|abbr=on}}. He recovered larger masses in other analyses, though expressed his belief that these were overestimates due to the methodologies applied. Nevertheless, in 1998, Spencer G. Lucas and Robert M. Shoch provided an even larger body mass of {{Convert|3,000–4,500|kg|lb|abbr=on}} for U. anceps. The size of U. insperatus is not certain, though it is believed to have been smaller. Despite its size, U. anceps was exceeded in sized by related taxa such as Eobasileus. Uintatherium as a whole appears to have exhibited strong sexual dimorphism: males had larger canines, larger flanges on the lower jaws, larger sagittal crests, larger horns, and an overall larger body size. As it was a fairly large mammal which lived mostly in temperate environments, William Berryman Scott suggested that Uintatherium may have been predominantly hairless, though noted that there is no direct evidence.

File:Dinoceras mirabile Marsh MNHN.jpg, Paris]]The skull of Uintatherium is roughly three times longer than it is wide. Most skulls range from {{Convert|69–85|cm|in|abbr=on}} in length. Some specimens have skulls which, when measured at the zygomatic arches, are roughly {{Convert|32|cm|in|abbr=on}} wide, suggesting a very large overall skull size. Furthermore, some specimens initially referred to Loxolophodon have skull lengths of up to {{cvt|91|cm}}, nearly a third larger than most others. Uintatherium skulls can be distinguished from those of other uintatheriins (if that clade exists) by the broadness of their skulls. Eobasileus and Tetheopsis have skulls which are relatively longer and slenderer.

The nasal bones of Uintatherium are very long, comprising roughly half of the total length of the skull. They project far enough that they completely overhang the external nares.{{Cite book |last=Marsh |first=Othniel Charles |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Gigantic_Mammals_of_the_Order_Dinoce/ygrJPIWsOG0C |title=The Gigantic Mammals of the Order Dinocerata |date=1885 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |language=en}} Uintatherium had large zygomatic arches, of which the maxilla comprised the anterior (front) portion, similar to proboscideans. Like other dinoceratans, the skull of Uintatherium lacked a postorbital process. At the back of Uintatherium's skull was a very large occipital crest, extending posteriorly (rearward) further than the occipital condyles. To either side of the occipital crest sat a pair of very large parasagittal crests. In some specimens, the lacrimal, the above the orbits (eye sockets), was distally (outwardly) expanded, overhanging the zygomatic arches; in others, those formerly referred to Loxolophodon, the zygomatic arches projected beyond them. Much like other dinoceratans, Uintatherium's skull was adorned with a series of well-developed cranial outgrowths, sometimes called horns, three pairs in total. The first pair sits at the front of each nasal, and differs in form between specimens: in some, these protrusions are small and deflected upward and outward, while in others, they are larger and more horizontal. The second pair, above the maxillae, sits directly above the diastema (gap) separating the canines and premolars. The last, the so-called parietal horns, sits far anterior to (in front of) the occipital bone, on the parasagittal crests. This differs from the related Eobasileus and Tetheopsis, in which the parietal horns are closer to the occipital. Furthermore, in those two genera, the premaxillary horn sits above the premolars, meaning the portion of the snout anterior to the maxillary horns is far longer; in Uintatherium, the snout anterior to the maxillary horns is fairly short. Contrary to their occasional description as horns, it is unlikely that any of these outgrowths were cornified (reinforced by keratin), as there is no evidence of the vascularization necessary for a keratinous covering.{{Cite book |last=Marsh |first=Othniel Charles |url=http://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Dinocerata/LGY-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 |title=Dinocerata: A Monograph of an Extinct Order of Gigantic Mammals |date=1886 |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |language=en}} It is likely that they were covered only by skin. Nevertheless, Othniel Charles Marsh noted damage to several Uintatherium horn cores, likely inflicted while the animals were still alive, suggesting that they used their horns in agonistic behaviors. Like other animals with extensive cranial ornamentation, Uintatherium's skull was lightened by well-developed sinuses, though not to the same extent.

Uintatherium's brain appears to have been among the smallest, proportionally of any mammal, such that Othniel Charles Marsh noted that "it could apparently have been drawn through the neural canal of all the pre-sacral vertebrae". While an elephant-like trunk or proboscis was suggested early on, based on alleged affinities to proboscideans, the structure of the ethmoturbinal bones of the nasal passage and the structure of the olfactory nerves suggest that no such structure existed. In its place, there may have been a flexible upper lip, analogous to that of modern rhinocerotids.File:Dinocerata_-_a_monograph_of_an_extinct_order_of_gigantic_mammals_(1886)_(20768915928).jpg

Projecting from the anteroventral (towards the front and at the bottom) portion of Uintatherium's mandibles (lower jaws) are a pair of large flanges. In most specimens, these would have provided support to the large upper canines, though specimens formerly referred to Loxolophodon had smaller flanges which did not extend as far. It has been suggested that the observed difference in flange size is the result of sexual dimorphism, with larger-flanged jaws belonging to males. Similar structures are observed in the related Bathyopsis. Flanges aside, the lower jaw of Uintatherium is fairly slender. Unlike most other ungulates, the condyles are deflected posteriorly, likely to accommodate the large upper tusks: without such a modification, the jaws would be unable to fully open. This condition is otherwise only seen in some marsupials and members of the former order Insectivora. The mandible's coronoid process is large, curves posteriorly, and is pointed dorsally (at the top). The mandibular condyles are small and convex, and sit slightly above the level of the cheek teeth. Below the condyles, the posterior border of the mandible is very rough, due tothe attachment of the pterygoid muscles.

File:Dinocerata_(Pl._XVIII)_(7158996244).jpg of Uintatherium |265x265px]]

Uintatherium has a dental formula of {{DentalFormula|lower=3.1.3.3|upper=0.1.3.3}},{{Cite book |last=Scott |first=William Berryman |url=https://archive.org/details/historyoflandmam00scot |title=A history of land mammals in the western hemisphere |date=1913 |publisher=New York, The MacMillan Company |others=Smithsonian Libraries}}{{efn|No incisors, one canine, three premolars and three molars in each half of the upper jaw, and three incisors, one canine, three premolars and three molars in each half of the lower jaw, resulting in 34 teeth in total}} though one early record provided a dental formula of {{DentalFormula|lower=3.1.4.3|upper=0.1.3.3}}. Uintatheriids in general lack upper incisors, and Uintatherium was no exception. The loss of the upper incisors likely indicates the presence of a firm elastic pad on the ventral portion of the premaxilla, similar to that of ruminants. The lower incisors are bilobate, bearing crowns which are split into two distinctive cusps. The lower canines were somewhat incisiform, meaning that they resemble conventional incisors, while the upper canines are large and have been compared to sabres. Eobasileus and Tetheopsis have similar canines. The size of the canines, as with their supporting flanges, appears to have been sexually dimorphic, and they may have served a display function or been used in defense.{{Cite journal |last=Werdelin |first=Lars |date=2024-05-30 |title=Hypercanines: Not just for sabertooths |url=https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.25510 |journal=The Anatomical Record |language=en |doi=10.1002/ar.25510 |issn=1932-8486}} Between the canines and cheek teeth, there is a large gap, the diastema. Behind the diastema are three upper premolars and three upper molars, all of which were fairly small. All of Uintatherium's cheek teeth are brachyodont, meaning they have short crowns and well-developed roots; Horace Elmer Wood, in 1923, described them as "inadequate-appearing".{{Cite web |last=Wood |first=Horace Elmer |title=The problem of the Uintatherium molars. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 48, article 18 |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/89427 |access-date=2025-06-10 |website=Biodiversity Heritage Library}} The first upper premolar appears to have completely disappeared, with only the occasional preservation of the alveolus (tooth socket); reduced first premolars, on both upper and lower jaws, are a diagnostic trait of dinoceratans. Whether or not the first lower premolar is retained in Uintatherium is uncertain, as some sources report it as present, while others report it as absent. The third lower molar is very short, with reduced ectoconid and hypoconulid crests. The paraconids and paracristids of all teeth from the third upper premolar to the second upper molar are greatly reduced. As a whole, it has been noted that Uintatherium's dentition is intermediate between that of Bathyopsis and Eobasileus: the former taxon has smaller upper canines, less incisiform lower canines, and less strongly bilophodont cheek teeth than Uintatherium, while the latter has more extreme developments of those traits. This is part of the reason why an evolutionary sequence between the three genera has been proposed.{{Cite book |last=Lucas |first=Spencer G. |title=Evolution of tertiary mammals of North America |last2=Schoch |first2=Robert M. |date=1998 |publisher=Cambridge university press |isbn=978-0-521-35519-3 |editor-last=Janis |editor-first=Christine M. |location=Cambridge |chapter=Dinocerata |editor-last2=Scott |editor-first2=Kathleen M. |editor-last3=Jacobs |editor-first3=Louis L.}}

File:Dinocerata_(Pl._XXVI)_(7159056536).jpg

Uintatheriines as a whole are characterised by their heavy and robust skeletons, often historically compared to proboscideans, though compared by Turnbull to hippopotamuses. With the exception of parts of the skull, the known parts of Uintatherium's skeletal were solid, a condition known as pachyostosis. Uintatherium's neck was overall quite similar to proboscideans. It was also similar to that of Eobasileus, though in that genus, the neck was considerably shorter. The first cervical (neck) vertebra, the atlas, and the second cervical vertebra, the axis, are particularly proboscidean-like. The atlas in particular is massive, while the axis is short and robust. The rest of the cervical ceries is more elongated than in proboscideans, though still short in relation to the axis. The vertebral centra are taller than they are long, and are in turn wider than they are tall. All of the dorsal (back) vertebrae are opishthocoelous, convex anteriorly and concave posteriorly; the same condition is seen in proboscideans, but in them, it is more extreme. The first thoracic vertebra has a fairly small neural spine and short transverse processes. Further back in the thoracic column, the vertebrae are much larger, and have bigger neural spines. The lumbar vertebrae have wedge-shaped centra and weak, laterally-compressed neural spines, with thin transverse processes. Four vertebrae were present in the sacrum. Only four of Uintatherium's caudal (tail) vertebrae are known. They were bore long, narrow centra, decreasing in size the further they are posteriorly. Despite their relative slenderness, the caudal vertebrae are quite broad in comparison to those of proboscideans. The ribs of Uintatherium also resembled proboscideans, and have been compared to mastodons specifically, while the sternum more closely resembles certain artiodactyls.

File:Dinocerata_(Pl._LIV)_(7159107224).jpg

As with much of the postcranial skeleton, Uintatherium's forelimbs and hind limbs, and the pectoral and pelvic girdles respectively, were very convergent with proboscideans. The scapula (shoulder blade) of Uintatherium resembles that of proboscideans, though is less developed above the glenoid fossa. The humerus is fairly short and massively built. Its great tuberosity is slightly compressed and does not extend above the humeral head. The lower portion of the humerus resembles that of rhinocerotids. The radius and ulna are essentially equal in size. The ulna has a small face where it articulates with the lunate, again similar to proboscideans. Where Uintatherium's forelimbs differ the most from proboscideans are the manus (forefeet), which each bear five digits. There are eight carpal (wrist) bones, which interlock, similar to perissodactyls. Uintatherium's scaphoid bone is somewhat like elephants, though is shorter and stouter, and has a rounded proximal (near) end. The smallest bone of the carpus is the trapezoid. Unlike elephants and proboscideans, the unciform bone articulates with both the cuneiform and lunar bones. The phalanges (digit bones) are short, and grew increasingly rugose distally (away from the centre of the body). Overall, Uintatherium's manus anatomy somewhat resembled that of the pantodont Coryphodon. In life, it is likely that all four of Uintatherium's appendages bore fleshy pads like those of elephants, and were somewhat columnar in shape.

Uintatherium's pelvis is very large, with a sub-oval outline, only superficially resembling that of proboscideans. Its width suggests that it supported a greatly enlarged hindgut. The femur is fairly short, lacked a pit to accommodate the round ligament, and had a great trochanter which was flat and recurved. Distally, the femur was more strongly laterally compressed than in a proboscidean. It has femur condyles around the same size. In life, Uintatherium would have held its hind leg essentially straight, as in elephants and humans. The patella (kneecap) is oval-shaped. The fibula is slender, with prominent articular faces for the elements of the tarsus (ankle and foot). The astragalus, or talus, is more like perissodactyls than proboscideans, in that its anterior portion has articular faces for both the cuboid and navicular bones. Uintatherium's pes (hind foot) has four well-developed digits, and a fifth which is smaller and less well-developed. Though smaller, the pedal anatomy is otherwise similar to the manus.

Like other uintatheriids, the molars of Uintatherium were bilophodont (two-ridged).{{Citation |last=Saarinen |first=Juha |title=The Palaeontology of Browsing and Grazing |date=2019 |work=The Ecology of Browsing and Grazing II |volume=239 |pages=5–59 |editor-last=Gordon |editor-first=Iain J. |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-25865-8_2 |access-date=2025-06-10 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-25865-8_2 |isbn=978-3-030-25864-1 |editor2-last=Prins |editor2-first=Herbert H. T.}} Cheek teeth with this morphology often belong to browsing (feeding on leaves, shoots and twigs of relatively high-growing plants) animals.{{Cite book |last=Rose |first=Kenneth D. |url=https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Beginning_of_the_Age_of_Mammals/lyGqD_GWQ7oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover |title=The Beginning of the Age of Mammals |date=2006-10-31 |publisher=JHU Press |isbn=978-0-8018-9221-9 |language=en}} It has therefore been suggested that Uintatherium adopted a similar lifestyle.{{Cite book |last=Casilliano |first=Michael |url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ApLcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT7&dq=uintatherium+browsing&ots=nno8qxFeDQ&sig=GQv_VLHxcM3m19citg_kbyXyKnY |title=The Geological History of Fossil Butte National Monument and Fossil Basin |last2=McGrew |first2=Paul O. |date=2023-10-20 |publisher=Good Press |language=en}} However, in 2002, Turnbull suggested that it, and other late-stage dinoceratans, were more ecologically analogous to hippopotamuses, citing traits such as pachyostosis, short legs, and a barrel-shaped ribcage as supporting evidence. As C₄ grasses, on which hippopotamuses often feed, became widespread only fairly recently, and dinoceratan teeth were not suited for grazing, he noted that they likely fed quite differently to hippopotamuses. Whereas most modern ungulates ferment plant matter in their foregut, Turnbull suggested based on pelvic anatomy that Uintatherium was instead a hindgut fermenter, similar to proboscideans and perissodactyls. He further proposed that late-stage dinoceratans had digestive systems analogous to sirenians (sea cows). If this model is accurate, the processing of food would have occurred primarily in the hindgut, reducing demands on the cheek teeth and resulting in the "inadequate appearance" observed by Wood.

File:Early Eocene proxy ensemble data from fossil localities showing (a) MAT and (b) MAP estimates.png

Uintatherium evolved during a period in Earth's climatic history called the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. This period saw some of the highest average temperatures in Earth's history with temperatures in Colorado (where Uintatherium fossils have been found) reaching an annual average of {{convert|20|C|F}}—much higher than today where the mean annual temperature in Colorado is only around {{convert|6|C|F}}. Although global average temperatures declined throughout the Eocene, the average temperatures in North America remained relatively consistent for the first half of the period, and only cooled slightly towards the end of the Eocene.{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/s43247-025-02288-z |title=Persistent greenhouse conditions in Eocene North America point to lower climate sensitivity |date=2025 |last1=Smith |first1=Krister T. |last2=Bruch |first2=Angela A. |journal=Communications Earth & Environment |volume=6 |issue=1 |page=352 |bibcode=2025ComEE...6..352S }} North America did see considerable climatic developments dutring the course of the Eocene in spite of the relatively constant regional average temperatures. The uplifting of the Rocky Mountains and their associated volcanism lad to considerable drying in the North American interior. The arid scrublands which characterize the western United States today (as exemplified by Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico) began to emerge during this period.{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/512753 |title=Cenozoic Paleoclimate on Land in North America |date=2007 |last1=Retallack |first1=Gregory J. |journal=The Journal of Geology |volume=115 |issue=3 |pages=271–294 |bibcode=2007JG....115..271R }}

When Uintatherium first appeared in North America, most of the continent was covered primarily closed-canopy forests. This environment is exemplified by the Bridger Formation, which consisted of inland lakes surrounded by dense forests. This is inferred by the abundance of plant fossils and the presence of a great diversity of primate fossils, which are predominantly arboreal.{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.palaeo.2010.07.024 |title=Middle Eocene habitat shifts in the North American western interior: A case study |date=2010 |last1=Townsend |first1=K.E. Beth |last2=Rasmussen |first2=D. Tab |last3=Murphey |first3=Paul C. |last4=Evanoff |first4=Emmett |journal=Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology |volume=297 |issue=1 |pages=144–158 |bibcode=2010PPP...297..144T }} Fossils of redwoods, elms, and birch trees are known from throughout North America during this period, suggesting that the amount of precipitation did not vary considerably across latitudes. Most of North America was likely covered by temperate forests and temperate rainforests.{{cite journal |doi=10.5194/cp-16-1387-2020|doi-access=free |title=Paleobotanical proxies for early Eocene climates and ecosystems in northern North America from middle to high latitudes |date=2020 |last1=West |first1=Christopher K. |last2=Greenwood |first2=David R. |last3=Reichgelt |first3=Tammo |last4=Lowe |first4=Alexander J. |last5=Vachon |first5=Janelle M. |last6=Basinger |first6=James F. |journal=Climate of the Past |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=1387–1410 |bibcode=2020CliPa..16.1387W }} Even organisms more typically adapted to low-latitude environments, such as palm trees and crocodylians have fossils preserved as far North as Alaska and Ellesmere Island, exemplifying the extreme climatic conditions of the early and middle Eocene.{{cite journal |doi=10.1139/cjes-2016-0043 |title=Eocene paleontology and geology of western North America |date=2016 |last1=Greenwood |first1=David R. |last2=Pigg |first2=Kathleen B. |last3=Devore |first3=Melanie L. |journal=Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences |volume=53 |issue=6 |pages=543–547 |bibcode=2016CaJES..53..543G }}

By the time of the Uinta Formation, the landscape had changed considerably. The large lakes emblematic of the earlier Eocene had shrunk, and the majority of deposition was the product of low-volume streams. Insectivorous and frugivorous mammals (especially primates) declined in diversity alongside a rise of folivorous artiodactyls, which is interpreted as reflecting an increase in more open habitats resulting in a gradual decline in tree cover. Considerable forests existed, likely alongside the numerous waterways, but these were probably interspersed by open savannah environments. This trend towards aridifcation was facilitated by a general decline in the amount of precipitation in North America while average annual temperatures remained high. It would not be until the later parts of the Eocene that the global cooling began to affect North American ecosystems, by which point, Uintatherium was already extinct.

U. inseparatus appeared in Asia during the middle part of the Eocene. Its fossils are known from the Lushi Basin in China, which consisted of large, deep lakes that preserve fossils of bivalves and gastropods. These lakes were surrounded by forests and swamps and were interspersed by semi-arid steppe. Variations in sea-levels and intermittent flooding at the time also produced brackish lakes and swamps. The inland lakes varied in size over the course of the middle Eocene before eventually disappearing completely and being replaced by rivers and floodplains.{{cite journal |last1=Shao |first1=Kehan |last2=Lu |first2=Huayu |last3=Liang |first3=Chenghong |last4=Li |first4=Guangwei |last5=Gao |first5=Xin |last6=Lu |first6=Fan |last7=Lai |first7=Wen |last8=Wang |first8=Tingshan |last9=Chen |first9=Xuanxuan |last10=Lu |first10=Hengzhi |title=The Depositional Sequence and Paleoclimatic and Paleoenvironmental Variations at Lushi Basin, Central China During the Middle Eocene |journal=Quaternary Sciences |date=2024 |volume=44 |issue=2 |page=251-264 |doi=10.11928/j.issn.1001-7410.2024.02.01 |url=http://www.dsjyj.com.cn/en/article/doi/10.11928/j.issn.1001-7410.2024.02.01?viewType=HTML}}

File:A History of Land Mammals in the Western Hemisphere Fig. 48.jpg

Uintatherium anceps is known from various strata from the Bridgerian and Uintan North American land mammal ages. This corresponds to the interval between 50.5 and 39.7 million years ago—a span of just over 10 million years within the Eocene. The oldest remains confidently assigned to this species are from the faunal zone "BR3" of the Bridger Formation, which is at the end of the Bridgerian land mammal age.{{cite journal |last1=Gunnell |first1=Gregg F. |last2=Murphey |first2=Paul C. |last3=Stucky |first3=Richard K. |last4=Townsend |first4=K.E. Beth |last5=Robinson |first5=Peter |last6=Zonneveld |first6=John-Paul |last7=Bartels |first7=William S. |title=Biostratigraphy and biochronology of the latest Wasatchian, Bridgerian, and Uintan North American Land Mammal "Ages" |journal=Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin |date=2009 |volume=65 |page=279-330 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306157949_Biostratigraphy_and_biochronology_of_the_latest_Wasatchian_Bridgerian_and_Uintan_North_American_Land_Mammal_Ages}}

In the Bridger Formation, U. anceps coexisted with a variety of primitive ungulates including helohyids, homacodontids, brontotheriids, amynodontids, and hyopsodontids. The environment was also host to some of the ancestors of modern perissodactyl groups including Hyrachyus (a primitive relative of rhinos), Helaletes (an early relative of tapirs), and several species of Orohippus (a primitive horse). North America at the time also had a diverse assemblage of early primates including Microsyops, Notharctus, Smilodectes, and the members of Omomyidae (relatives of modern tarsiers). Mammalian predators of the region included mesonychids like Mesonyx and Harpagolestes, hyaenodontids like Limnocyon and Sinopa, oxyaenids like Patriofelis and Machaeroides, and early carnivoran-relatives like Miacis and Vulpavus. A variety of more enigmatic mammal forms were also present including members of Tillodontia, Stylinodontidae, and Pantolestidae and the small insectivorous Apatemys and Metacheiromys. Primitive sciuromorph rodents, leptictids, and eulypotyphlans coexisted with the metatherians Herpetotherium and Peradectes.

Reptiles were also abundant in this environment. Fossils from turtles including softshelled turtles, tortoises, terrapins, and baenids lived alongside anguids, varanids, teiids, and boids as well as crocodilians like Boverisuchus and Borealosuchus. Remains of primitive owls and cranes have also been found.{{cite journal |doi=10.5479/si.00810266.26.1 |title=Mammalian Faunal Zones of the Bridger Middle Eocene |date=1976 |last1=Gazin |first1=C. Lewis |journal=Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology |issue=26 |pages=1–25 |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/159217 }}J. A. Wilson. 1986. Stratigraphic Occurrence and Correlation of Early Tertiary Vertebrate Faunas, Trans-Pecos Texas: Agua Fria-Green Valley Areas. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 6(4):350-373

File:Uintatherium and Orohippus by Knight.jpg

In the transition from the Bridgerian to the Uintan, several of these animals became extinct and new forms emerged. The oxyaenids and phenacodontids disappeared during this transition and new groups like the oromerycids and the earliest chalicotheres (the eomoropids). This transition is followed by the appearance of several medium and large ungulate genera including Protylopus, Amynodon, and Eobasileus. This faunal subinterval is represented by the Devil's Graveyard Formation and has been argued to be a distinct land mammal sub-age (the "Shoshonian" or "UI1b biochronological zone"), although this is not universally accepted. This transition also saw a marked decline in primate diversity in North America, which would continue throughout the Eocene until primates eventually became extinct in North America.P. C. Murphey, T. S. Kelly, K. R. Chamberlain, K. Tsukui, and W. C. Clyde. 2018. Mammals from the earliest Uintan (middle Eocene) Turtle Bluff Member, Bridger Formation, southwestern Wyoming, USA, Part 3: Marsupialia and a reevaluation of the Bridgerian-Uintan North American Land Mammal Age transition. Palaeontologia Electronica 21.2.25A:1-52

The middle-Uintan land mammal age (sometimes called "UI2" biochronological zone) is the most recent interval from which fossils of U. anceps are known. This corresponds to the eponymous Uinta Formation. This interval saw the diversification of brontotheres, helohyids, and rhinocerotoids as well as the emergence of the first protoceratids, agriochoerids, and camelids. It also saw the extinction of North American cimolestans and leptictids as well as most of the remaining North American primates, with only the omomyids remaining extant. Primitive carnivoramorphs like Miocyon also emerged. The end of this interval saw the final extinction of Uintatherium in North America alongside other long-lived genera such as Mesonyx and Hyrachyus.{{cite journal |last1=Townsend |first1=K. E. |last2=Friscia |first2=A. R. |last3=Rasmussen |first3=D. T. |title=Stratigraphic Distribution of Upper Middle Eocene Fossil Vertebrate Localities in the Eastern Uinta Basin, Utah, with Comments on Uintan Biostratigraphy |journal=The Mountain Geologist |date=2006 |volume=43 |issue=2 |page=115-134 |url=https://archives.datapages.com/data/mountain-geologist-rmag/data/043/043002/115_rmag-mg430115.htm}}

File:Mollweide Paleographic Map of Earth, 45 Ma (Lutetian Age).png

The second species of Uintatherium, U. inseperatus, lived in the Lushi Formation what is now Henan, China during the Middle Eocene.Y. Tong and J. Wang. 1981. A Skull of Uintatherium from Henan. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 19(3):208-213 The precise age of the fossils assigned to this species are uncertain, but they have been estimated to be between 48 and 37 million years ago, which is roughly contemporaneous with the existence of U. anceps in North America.{{cite web |last1=Mannion |first1=Philip |title=Xiejiagou (Eocene of China) |url=https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicCollectionSearch?collection_no=175802&is_real_user= |website=The Paleobiology Database |quote=When: Lushi Formation, Middle Eocene (48.1 - 37.7 Ma)}} This corresponds to the Sharamurunian Asian land mammal age, which lasted for about the same length of time.{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s11430-018-9305-y |title=Paleogene integrative stratigraphy and timescale of China |date=2019 |last1=Wang |first1=Yuanqing |last2=Li |first2=Qian |last3=Bai |first3=Bin |last4=Jin |first4=Xun |last5=Mao |first5=Fangyuan |last6=Meng |first6=Jin |journal=Science China Earth Sciences |volume=62 |issue=1 |pages=287–309 |bibcode=2019ScChD..62..287W }} Remains assigned to U. inseperatus have also been found in the similarly-aged Uqbulak Formation in the Junggar Basin.Y. Tong. 1989. Some Eocene Mammals From the Uqbulak Area of the Junggar Basin, Xinjiang. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 27(3):182-196

The composition of Asian land mammal assemblages was similar in several ways to the contemporary assemblages in North America, although the precise timing of faunal turnover is not as well studied with respect to Eocene ecosystems in Asia. The carnivorous mammals of the continent were generally similar, with mesonychids, haplodectids, hyaenodontids, and the carnivoramorphan Miacis being the most abundant predators. However, several endemic carnivores coexisted with these including Eusmilus (an early nimravid), Cynodictis (a primitive amphicyonid), and the controversial carnivorous ungulate Andrewsarchus. Prey for these animals included a diverse array of terrestrial ungulates including late surviving members of Paleocene lineages such as the coryphodont Eudinoceras, dichobunids, tillodontians, and taeniodontans. Ungulate groups common in North America were also represented, including Hyrachyus as well as the helohyids, brontotheriids, helaletiids, and amynodontids. They were accompanied by a diverse array of perissodactyls, which underwent a radiation in Asia during the Middle Eocene. These new groups included the paraceratheriids, hyracodontids, chalicotheriids, and deperetellids. The artiodactyl anthracotheres also first evolved in Asia during this period.M. Chow, C.h. Li, and Y. Chang. 1973. Late Eocene mammalian faunas of Honan and Shansi with notes on some vertebrate fossils collected therefrom. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 11(2):165-181

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist|2}}

{{Commons category|Uintatherium}}

{{Portal|Paleontology}}

• [http://www.ansp.org/museum/leidy/paleo/uintatherium.php Academy of Natural Sciences]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20051220222216/http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/fobu/sec4b.htm National Park Service]
• [http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/1309 Wood, Horace Elmer 1923, The problem of the Uintatherium molars, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History; v. 48, article 18]
• [http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlversion/evidence/eoc_02.html Fossil Evidence – Eocene: Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History]

{{Taxonbar|from=Q131558}}

Category:Dinoceratans

Category:Eocene mammals of North America

Category:Fossil taxa described in 1872

Category:Taxa named by Joseph Leidy

Category:Paleontology in Wyoming

Category:Paleontology in Utah

Category:Paleontology in Henan

Category:Prehistoric placental genera

Category:Eocene mammals of Asia